Rumor: Things Not Left Unsaid: Flyers Rumors & Media Mentions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chicken N Raffls

Here for the chaos and lolz
Nov 7, 2022
3,968
8,164
Douglassville
Yup. Hell, I like Sanheim, but signing a good, but far from elite player to an 8 year deal with 4 years of trade projection is just flat out stupid.

Of course, when you’ve already signed the softest middle 6 C in the league to 7 x 7.14, a borderline 3rd pair D to 5 x 5 and a goon to a 4 year deal with 2 years of trade protection, it’s pretty much just par for the course.

Cuckles Fletchbag, the gift that keeps on giving.

The 4 year deal with a NTC for a face puncher has got to be the funniest thing I've seen this org do, and that's saying something.
 

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
51,462
22,425
I wouldn't have signed Sanheim to an 8 year contract, not because I don't value the player but because I'm realistic about the timeline and coffers in need of filling.

For argument's sake, let's say a team wasn't realistic about its timeline. Let's say it believed it could turn things around in, oh say, 3 years? Sanheim would be 30 years old, with 5 years left on his deal. That's a pretty normal veteran age. He's objectively a #2/3 caliber defender now, he's a smooth skater and those archetypes generally age well. So, if your internal timeline is to be back in the playoff mix at that time, then what is the impetus to urgently move him? The Flyers defensive depth looks awful now, and there's no high end guys in the system, unless they grossly misevaluate their stock (wouldn't be a shocker). Now, if it was for a teardown rebuild, I get it. But that's not what's going on.

In 3 years, Ristolainen will be 32 years old and on the final year of his contract. He's objectively a fringe bottom pair guy. None of this is an issue, however. There are no reports about trading him. We know why, and it's not good process and contradictory logic galore.
If the league thought Sanheim was a #2/#3, Briere's phone wouldn't stop ringing from teams offering him a 1st rd pick to have a 27 year old D-man under a cost controlled contract with the cap rising next year. He'd be a freakin' bargain.

Obviously, they seem him as a #4, who might be worth $6M on his best season, but $3-5M most years.
 

bauer

I MISS GHOST
Nov 11, 2007
4,635
4,851
It really depends on the player. A successful team like Tampa has done it routinely with non-star players. Killorn, Johnson, Gourde, McDonagh, Cirelli, Cernak, etc.
there's always exceptions. TB are a cup contending team. there's a difference between trying to keep together a champion caliber team and whatever the hell we're doing here. a team like the Flyers shouldn't be locking in players long term that don't help them win.
 

landsbergfan

Registered User
Jun 20, 2018
6,813
24,262
there's always exceptions. TB are a cup contending team. there's a difference between trying to keep together a champion caliber team and whatever the hell we're doing here. a team like the Flyers shouldn't be locking in players long term that don't help them win.
Term keeps AAV down. There are lots of times where it is good. The bigger issue with the flyers is their unmatched ability to tank player value once players are signed with term
 

chadateit

Registered User
Jan 11, 2021
250
609
Yeah I have to imagine it is going to be pretty devastating since it hasn't been released yet. Maybe I am wrong but I think I read that they've been done the report for a while now.
I hadn't really thought about it until now, but, what if the impact of the report is much worse than "Flyers can't find a taker for Hart in a trade?"
What if it's so bad that Hart is done in the NHL? Is someone in the org that worried about this outcome that we are now in the mode of stockpiling Goalie insurance?
Of course, see Chicago, and how they faced no consequences for that whole disgraceful mess, so it seems unlikely. But this is the flyers...
 

dgaspari

Registered User
Feb 13, 2008
201
64
are there any nonqualified players or bought-out contracts that can provide insurance depth if Atkinson and Couturier do not have a healthy season?
e.g. Duchene, Sprong or Geekie
 

Rebels57

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2014
78,257
125,947
I wouldn't have signed Sanheim to an 8 year contract, not because I don't value the player but because I'm realistic about the timeline and coffers in need of filling.

For argument's sake, let's say a team wasn't realistic about its timeline. Let's say it believed it could turn things around in, oh say, 3 years? Sanheim would be 30 years old, with 5 years left on his deal. That's a pretty normal veteran age. He's objectively a #2/3 caliber defender now, he's a smooth skater and those archetypes generally age well. So, if your internal timeline is to be back in the playoff mix at that time, then what is the impetus to urgently move him? The Flyers defensive depth looks awful now, and there's no high end guys in the system, unless they grossly misevaluate their stock (wouldn't be a shocker). Now, if it was for a teardown rebuild, I get it. But that's not what's going on.

In 3 years, Ristolainen will be 32 years old and on the final year of his contract. He's objectively a fringe bottom pair guy. None of this is an issue, however. There are no reports about trading him. We know why, and it's not good process and contradictory logic galore.

None of their trades have anything to do with a longterm vision. Its all about Emperor Tortellini.
 

FLYguy3911

Sanheim Lover
Oct 19, 2006
54,969
90,588
The Sanheim contract was dumb for the team because they never played him like they paid him (I said this before it was officially signed). 8 year deals are for all situations guys. They didn't use him on the PP and he was on PK2. Never was going to live up to a max term contract.

Now with Provorov and Deangelo (likely) out of the fold, there's an opportunity to bump up his usage and possibly dump him in the coming year(s). I doubt that'll happen. I expect the PP minutes to go to Risto and they'll wonder why they can't trade him.
 
Last edited:

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
51,462
22,425
CF could have signed Duchene instead of Hayes. Duchene just bought out with 4 years left on his deal, he can score but is a defensive liability at 32, now who does that sound like?

Face it, Hayes and TDA were dumped b/c every player of that type is getting dumped this offseason. Johansen, Hall, Wheeler, et al.
At least Briere didn't have to give up assets to dump these contracts!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tucson83

TheKingPin

Registered User
Nov 16, 2005
20,939
10,470
Philadelphia, PA
I feel better about the Hayes deal now that we have seen moves before and after. But they still should have just kept him to retain on TK and maybe a go between to pick up a 2nd.
 

ponder719

M-M-M-Matvei and the Jett
Jul 2, 2013
8,076
11,308
Philadelphia, PA
CF could have signed Duchene instead of Hayes. Duchene just bought out with 4 years left on his deal, he can score but is a defensive liability at 32, now who does that sound like?

Face it, Hayes and TDA were dumped b/c every player of that type is getting dumped this offseason. Johansen, Hall, Wheeler, et al.
At least Briere didn't have to give up assets to dump these contracts!
Duchene might still be here, provided he and Torts had a functional-enough relationship. He got bought out because Nashville is doing scorched-earth right. We’re apparently not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rebels57

renberg

Registered User
Dec 31, 2003
7,310
7,589
Lewes Delaware
forums.hfboards.com
My call on Hayes is that he’s cooked. He never was the fastest guy on the ice and the injuries have taken their toll. Tortorella’s assessment that he no longer can handle center ice is correct. Since Hayes doesn’t care to play wing, there’s a problem.
Now it’s St. Louis’ mess now not the Flyers. It’s going to be more of the downhill decline for Hayes. JMO but the talking heads who feel that Briere got fleeced on this deal are going to be eating crow over the next three seasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad